[HACKERS] Should a materialized view be based on a view?
I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the idea of first creating a normal view, and then materializing it. That seems pretty attractive to me, too. How do people feel about that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different schema)? Love it or hate it? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Should a materialized view be based on a view?
On 18 November 2011 23:26, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.govwrote: I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the idea of first creating a normal view, and then materializing it. That seems pretty attractive to me, too. How do people feel about that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different schema)? Love it or hate it? -Kevin Hi Kevin, maybe a stupid question... but why? It looks like for creating a function I should create another function earlier. For me the design should be simple. If you want to create something below my MV, thats fine for me, if I don't need to know that (just like when creating a serial column). regards Szymon
Re: [HACKERS] Should a materialized view be based on a view?
On 18 November 2011 22:26, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the idea of first creating a normal view, and then materializing it. That seems pretty attractive to me, too. How do people feel about that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different schema)? Love it or hate it? Is there a need to create it as a normal view first? Can't the CREATE VIEW syntax be expanded to support MV capabilities? (CREATE [ MATERIALIZED ] VIEW...) And then ALTER VIEW can materialise a regular view, or dematerialise a materialised view. -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
